In your world, Rob, the intersection of left/right and right/wrong always seem to result in only one combination: left=wrong and right=right?

The intersection always results in disaster for one faction or the other; even coalitions fail in the end because they represent neither fish nor foul.

However, in this instance, there is no intersection because it's a clear-cut case of treachery towards the mother country or, if you prefer, the fatherland.

The reference to the left is forced upon me in this case - I assume you to alluded to my previous post? - because they are inevitably the ones marching down the avenue flying the red flag, regardless of the reason for the march. You could call a demonstration for more severe or even more liberal dog licences, and the faithful reds would come out with the banners. It's what they do. It's their raison d'ętre. All of the post-industrial lands have them in abundance. That's generally why they became post-industrial lands; a measure of red success, if you will.

So you have no opinion about what material should be included or what sources should be included?

The whole can of worms, Isaac. You haven't deigned to tell us how old you are, so from what you're saying I have to assume you're young enough that all you know about the Carter administration is what outfits like CNN, NBC, ABC, NPR and the NYT tell you. I was there. I lived through that period. I don't have to guess how bad it was.

I 'd assume, RSL, you shall not reference anything before WWII then... ever... if that is your position whether person shall live through something and remember in person how it was to write... and please no references to China, Russia, Syria, Iran, etc - you did not live there either...

I 'd assume, RSL, you shall not reference anything before WWII then... ever... if that is your position whether person shall live through something and remember in person how it was to write... and please no references to China, Russia, Syria, Iran, etc - you did not live there either...

That's a good point.

We all rely on various third party information sources to make up our minds.

It used to be that people used to be divided in 2 groups: the well traveled ones who did go to places to check for themselves, and the others who didn't have the privileged to do so.

Now we tend to think that we know because the one newspaper we like says so...

... It used to be that people used to be divided in 2 groups: the well traveled ones who did go to places to check for themselves, and the others who didn't have the privileged to do so...

Like my music (god vs. bad, not classical vs. rock), I tend to group people into two groups too: smart vs. stupid (pardon the simplification). Even when well-traveled, stupid people tend to see what they want to see, in order to confirm their preexisting opinion. While smart people can draw smart conclusions even from third party sources. You know, like the black-box concept: you do not know what is going on inside, but if you know what comes in and what comes out, you can figure it out pretty well.